canon rumors FORUM

What is your application? Photoshop was made for the designer, LR was made for the photographer. LR is an excellent catalogue based, non destructive software which today I could not live without for mass edits. It pretty much has everything you need under one roof. At times I will export an image to PS for advanced editing and after you save it it will open again in LR as a Tiff. There will be two images, the original and the tiff.

I too used DPP (for years) converted to Tiff and edited in PS which increased file storage. LR just remembers the edits and keeps them. I don't even save the exported Jpeg's anymore because if I need them I can just export them out of LR again.

You have elements so I'm not sure you can export into elements for advanced editing but you may not need to do that. I don't know what features PS have that elements does not which you'd miss. I hate LR's clone tool so for complex cloning I export to PS and that is probably one of the main reasons I export.

LR is a great tool but it lacks some things. You cannot run actions. I have several sharpening actions (I'm a sharpening geek) so for my hobby shots I use PS. For mass edits I use LR. You are a bit of a slave to LR's catalogue system. You have to be careful where you set up the catalogue and after import you must move folders/ files within LR. If you don't you will lose all the previous edits. It is not a big deal, you just have to be aware of it.

As for that sharpening thing. LR does a pretty good job. PS has the sharpening while you edit feature which I'm sure elements has. When finished with your edits you select export and a page opens which has all types of features. There is a sharpening dialogue box where you can select type of media - screen, gloss or matt paper and 3 levels of sharpening.

Like I said I have my own sharpening actions so I see the final product before saving using PS. Using LR you see the final product after you select save in the export page and then it is too late. If I don't like the sharpening using Photo shop I just go a step back. LR you have to export again. OK for 10 images but it just takes more time if you have 500. You can do some tests to see what works for you. I did that and now have presets in the export page for type of media, etc.

We have a local award winning photographer that works exclusively with LR. Best thing is to try the 30 day free trial and see for yourself. Just be very careful where you place your catalogue when you first open LR. Mine is on my external, back up hard drive. Take your time and don't rush through this.

What is your application? Photoshop was made for the designer, LR was made for the photographer. LR is an excellent catalogue based, non destructive software which today I could not live without for mass edits. It pretty much has everything you need under one roof. At times I will export an image to PS for advanced editing and after you save it it will open again in LR as a Tiff. There will be two images, the original and the tiff.

I too used DPP (for years) converted to Tiff and edited in PS which increased file storage. LR just remembers the edits and keeps them. I don't even save the exported Jpeg's anymore because if I need them I can just export them out of LR again.

You have elements so I'm not sure you can export into elements for advanced editing but you may not need to do that. I don't know what features PS have that elements does not which you'd miss. I hate LR's clone tool so for complex cloning I export to PS and that is probably one of the main reasons I export.

LR is a great tool but it lacks some things. You cannot run actions. I have several sharpening actions (I'm a sharpening geek) so for my hobby shots I use PS. For mass edits I use LR. You are a bit of a slave to LR's catalogue system. You have to be careful where you set up the catalogue and after import you must move folders/ files within LR. If you don't you will lose all the previous edits. It is not a big deal, you just have to be aware of it.

As for that sharpening thing. LR does a pretty good job. PS has the sharpening while you edit feature which I'm sure elements has. When finished with your edits you select export and a page opens which has all types of features. There is a sharpening dialogue box where you can select type of media - screen, gloss or matt paper and 3 levels of sharpening.

Like I said I have my own sharpening actions so I see the final product before saving using PS. Using LR you see the final product after you select save in the export page and then it is too late. If I don't like the sharpening using Photo shop I just go a step back. LR you have to export again. OK for 10 images but it just takes more time if you have 500. You can do some tests to see what works for you. I did that and now have presets in the export page for type of media, etc.

We have a local award winning photographer that works exclusively with LR. Best thing is to try the 30 day free trial and see for yourself. Just be very careful where you place your catalogue when you first open LR. Mine is on my external, back up hard drive. Take your time and don't rush through this.

Good luck.

+1

I find LR very useful and 90% of all my photo processing needs are met by it - the only time I use PS is for photo stitching or some detailed skin work.

And yes, you can use the "Edit In" feature of Lightroom to open a rendered photo (in PSD, TIFF, etc format) right in Photoshop Elements Editor just like full Photoshop. When you save the photo and return to LR it's in the catalog as another version of the original, and you can even do LR editing on top of it (but opening it back in PS makes more sense to me). The nice thing is you can export, watermark, print etc the PSD/TIFF right from LR just like RAW/DNG files you've edited in LR natively. Very seamless.

A PS instructor at our University told us Elements was released as a light version optimized for photo editing, so what you mainly loose are some of the exotic design tools. I think LR 4 + PS Elements 10/11 is a killer combo.

Having used DPP at first, LR was a smoother transition. If anything it provided me with a bit more tools to process. Things like a watermark. Also DPP for some reason was very unstable in my computer, same computer I don't have issues with LR. (DPP would crash, halting and forcing me to shut down the computer before I could reopen it, or else it would continue crashing).

I have not used PS, I understand what it can do for you as a photographer but my prefence so far has been to continue with LR. I don't do professional photography work, so that matters. Doing photography as a hobby, means I can live with imperfections in the skin of a person or electricity wires in my pics without much fuss.

Coming from DPP, chances are you will like it and embrace it as a very good tool if you give it the chance. Understand that PS is not a more advanced tool or the next step after LR, it's a different tool (as was already mentioned) aimed at accomplishing different tasks.

One thing you need to consider is the power of your existing pc or mac. LR4 is very thirsty in my experience. I was running a late 2011 iMac which had 4gb of RAM and it just wasn't enough, to crack a nut I used the proverbial sledgehammer and upgraded to 16gb, at the same price Apple wanted to charge to to upgrade from 4 to 8gb when I purchased the iMac in the first place.

The operating specs for LR4 are 2GB of Ram but if you are running other stuff simultaneously such as Elements, Internet, Mail etc then it needs way more in my experience.

Once you get into it then you'll find you can do 90% of your editing in LR unless you are into major photoshop edits or creating composites of course.

A big issue with DPP is that there are no real instructions on how to use it properly and efficently, each user is left to sink or swim.

With Lightroom, there are lots of good books and online tutorials.

Lightroom is much more complex than DPP, and you will need some training on the best way to use it, we see questions from Lightroom users all the time that show they do not understand the basics of how to organize their images, keyword them, much less what the controls do or how to best use them.

If you want to use Lightroom, do yourself a big favor and first view the free online Adove video tutorials, and then buy a reference book to refer to for seldom used functions.

You can speedup your editing by a factor of 10, 100, or 1000 if you take advantage of some of the features.

For example, some try to organize photos in folders on their computer like they would if not using a database. Thats not how Adobe is designed to work. You can do it, but you are not taking full advantage of its capabilities.

And yes, you can use the "Edit In" feature of Lightroom to open a rendered photo (in PSD, TIFF, etc format) right in Photoshop Elements Editor just like full Photoshop. When you save the photo and return to LR it's in the catalog as another version of the original, and you can even do LR editing on top of it (but opening it back in PS makes more sense to me). The nice thing is you can export, watermark, print etc the PSD/TIFF right from LR just like RAW/DNG files you've edited in LR natively. Very seamless.

A PS instructor at our University told us Elements was released as a light version optimized for photo editing, so what you mainly loose are some of the exotic design tools. I think LR 4 + PS Elements 10/11 is a killer combo.

So you can export into elements. I guess LR automatically detects another Adobe product. I never had elements so did not know how to answer that one.

And yes, you can use the "Edit In" feature of Lightroom to open a rendered photo (in PSD, TIFF, etc format) right in Photoshop Elements Editor just like full Photoshop. When you save the photo and return to LR it's in the catalog as another version of the original, and you can even do LR editing on top of it (but opening it back in PS makes more sense to me). The nice thing is you can export, watermark, print etc the PSD/TIFF right from LR just like RAW/DNG files you've edited in LR natively. Very seamless.

A PS instructor at our University told us Elements was released as a light version optimized for photo editing, so what you mainly loose are some of the exotic design tools. I think LR 4 + PS Elements 10/11 is a killer combo.

This is what I do.

1. After saving in PS, LR shows two files of the same image.

2. The new TIFF (which I select to use) is labelled 1/2 and the existing CR2 file is labelled 2/2.

3. I immediately flag the CR2 file (2/2) and hide it under under the new TIFF (1/2).

4. At export I "Select Flagged Photos"

5. Then I "Invert Selection" which deselects all the flagged photos and selects all the un-flagged photos

LR does not export the flagged photos. It may not be the best way to do that but I only edit about 10% of the images in PS so it is easier to flag those as I work on them rather than flagging the other 90% for export.

LR used to have a "Select All Un-Flagged Photos" command but must have removed it during an update. Unless I have lost my mind and just can't find it.

One more thing about LR sharpening if anyone is interested. I must have tried the free trial 3 times before purchasing. I could not handle not having complete control of output sharpening and let LR decide by offering Low, Standard and High options.

I did some research and found the Pixel Genius group developed that output sharpening for LR. The late great Bruce Fraser who was the pioneer in sharpening (the 3 phases) was a member of the Pixel Genius group. He co-authored this famous book.

I keep it simple. Spend enough time to choose the best parameters, and then save as JPEG. I use default sharpening unless I print big.

LR gives you much more freedom in the conversion than DPP. I wish it were not catalog oriented. For people like me, who use it as a converter only, "importing" is a unnecessary annoying step.

It is also much faster. Before LR I converted using DPP and then edited in PS. Add all the resizing and sharpening actions. A real nightmare. LR must have cut my PP time at least in half.

I typically choose Standard for output sharpening. In your opinion which is the better media selection when the client does not know what type paper they will print on Matte or Glossy? I usually go Matte as my guess is most don't go full gloss.

I keep it simple. Spend enough time to choose the best parameters, and then save as JPEG. I use default sharpening unless I print big.

LR gives you much more freedom in the conversion than DPP. I wish it were not catalog oriented. For people like me, who use it as a converter only, "importing" is a unnecessary annoying step.

It is also much faster. Before LR I converted using DPP and then edited in PS. Add all the resizing and sharpening actions. A real nightmare. LR must have cut my PP time at least in half.

I typically choose Standard for output sharpening. In your opinion which is the better media selection when the client does not know what type paper they will print on Matte or Glossy? I usually go Matte as my guess is most don't go full gloss.

I do not use outputs sharpening, so I do not know. When printing small - does not really matter. For large print, I sharpen in PS. And I am my own (only) client.

I keep it simple. Spend enough time to choose the best parameters, and then save as JPEG. I use default sharpening unless I print big.

LR gives you much more freedom in the conversion than DPP. I wish it were not catalog oriented. For people like me, who use it as a converter only, "importing" is a unnecessary annoying step.

It is also much faster. Before LR I converted using DPP and then edited in PS. Add all the resizing and sharpening actions. A real nightmare. LR must have cut my PP time at least in half.

I typically choose Standard for output sharpening. In your opinion which is the better media selection when the client does not know what type paper they will print on Matte or Glossy? I usually go Matte as my guess is most don't go full gloss.

I do not use outputs sharpening, so I do not know. When printing small - does not really matter. For large print, I sharpen in PS. And I am my own (only) client.

Oh I see. It is not like I have a lot of clients. I use PS for my personal/hobby shots as well. You might be interested in this. Reply #17